Can science really disprove somethings existence?

[achilles12604]

Usually the argument goes something like this . . .

Theist: God exists.

Science: How do you know?

Theist: 1) origin of the universe, biblical history, personal experience, origin of life, etc

Science: And how do you know that the universe didn't just pop into being without God. Your personal experience doesn't count as evidence, and history can be wrong.

Theist: Well what makes you think God doesn't exist.

science: I am totally unable to detect any sign of him at all and science is the best method we have for detecting and studying things in the universe.

You don't need to answer. My point is very simply that bible thumpers and science thumpers sometimes have similar issues regarding their claims of total knowledge. Neither can truly get the whole picture alone.

But what picture is this? Lets say there is more to this world than science knows. How do we know this? What methodology do we deploy? And the point I’ve been banging on about over several threads the last few days is the only correct method for addressing reality is naturalism because only naturalism can meet the full set of criteria: prediction, verification, falsification and assigns a clear definition to all the signs it deploys in its answers. Any explanation that fails to meet this benchmark is intellectually vacuous. Regardless of the depth of conviction of any given non naturalistic belief.

However I detect that this point is not lost on you achilles because you make great attempts to rationalise your belief system, and I know you think that what is supernatural is only what science does not yet understand. That is easy for a full blown naturalist to admit. What we cannot admit is that the theist can fill in the gaps.

I guess this is where some degree of theistic faith comes in. Hey that gives me a thought. Is faith provable by science? For example, would science be able to determine someone's beliefs? If science is unable to determine someone's beliefs and faith, does that mean that the person's faith does not exist?

My questions for discussion.

Is science able to determine someone's beliefs without being told? Another possible question to clarify this point is can science prove that someone who is now dead, had beliefs while alive?

If silence is maintained and a person's beliefs can not be determined, does this mean the beliefs do not exist?

[byofrcs]

The Jury argument is a complete red herring. It was fun whilst it lasted but science is not on trial. Juries are notoriously poor in ascertaining the truth. Eyewitness Testimony (highly regarded by Juries) is so poor in ascertaining the truth it is a joke.

Your approach of using the Jury as an example of identifying the truth is at best unreliable and is more in the area of showmanship, psychology and presentation skills. These are important skills but these are not relevant to the science of knowledge acquisition.

....
if you want to know what I am then I am a muslim I don't subscribe to any sect to separate myself from others. I am a muslim just as the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was he didn't claim anything which those claim today. (sunni or shi'ite) And I follow what the messenger practised and taught.

Your claim that Muhammad actually received the message from Gabriel is unreliable and without evidence. It is at best a myth invented to help Muhammad rule. Many others have claimed divine sources for their knowledge and it was a good trick to help rule as it is very hard to object to someone when they hold a sword and claim God told them 'this'.

What myths you believe in (Islam and Juries) are irrelevant to the question originally posted in that can science disprove somethings existence. The answer must be yes if a probability of existence is low. Bayes works well in this case. Science can show reasonably well show 'x' or not-'x'.

[muhammad rasullah]

The Jury argument is a complete red herring. It was fun whilst it lasted but science is not on trial. Juries are notoriously poor in ascertaining the truth. Eyewitness Testimony (highly regarded by Juries) is so poor in ascertaining the truth it is a joke.

Your approach of using the Jury as an example of identifying the truth is at best unreliable and is more in the area of showmanship, psychology and presentation skills. These are important skills but these are not relevant to the science of knowledge acquisition.

....
if you want to know what I am then I am a muslim I don't subscribe to any sect to separate myself from others. I am a muslim just as the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was he didn't claim anything which those claim today. (sunni or shi'ite) And I follow what the messenger practised and taught.

Your claim that Muhammad actually received the message from Gabriel is unreliable and without evidence. It is at best a myth invented to help Muhammad rule. Many others have claimed divine sources for their knowledge and it was a good trick to help rule as it is very hard to object to someone when they hold a sword and claim God told them 'this'.

What myths you believe in (Islam and Juries) are irrelevant to the question originally posted in that can science disprove somethings existence. The answer must be yes if a probability of existence is low. Bayes works well in this case. Science can show reasonably well show 'x' or not-'x'.

The evidence is there. So you mean to tell me that over a billion people in the world believe in a myth. How can one man spread a religion by the sword by himself someone would've been kill him. Why couldn't they do it then? Many people practised idolatry then don't you think they loved there idols. To say that Muhammad never recieved the message from gabriel is also hard to believe. How could he have known all that he did about science and other things if he couldn't read nor write. here is a proof from science of the truth of muhammad. 27:61 Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not. 55:19 He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: 55:20 Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress: 55:21 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Scientist have now discovered that these two currents are different in their salinity, density, and temperature. They have also discovered that whenever the water moves from outside current to the inside current or vice versa, it immediately changes its state according to the water in the other current. Thus, there is free mixing of the two bodies of water, yet both the bodies maintain their specific identities. Such currents are common in the oceans of Europe and North America. They are totally absent not only in the oceans around the arabian peninsula, but the indian and the mediterranean oceans. Mind you that there are no oceans close to the area in which Muhammad lived and there is also no evidence that Muhammad took any journey anywhere close to such waters to have known this. The quran recognized such an intricate phenomenon centuries before the scientists could discover it.

[GrumpyMrGruff]

The evidence is there. So you mean to tell me that over a billion people in the world believe in a myth.

Do you mean to imply that the truth value of a belief corresponds to the number of people who believe in it? By this reasoning, Christianity is "more true" than Islam, which in turn is "more true" than Hinduism, which... you see the problem.

You call yourself a Muslim, so it seems unlikely that you believe in the existence of the Hindu pantheon or Siddhartha Gautama's (Buddha's) enlightenment. Yet these religions still have followers. For you, the number of these religions' adherents doesn't correspond to the truth of their beliefs. Why is your religion a special case?

How can one man spread a religion by the sword by himself someone would've been kill him. Why couldn't they do it then?

Muhammad didn't return to Mecca by himself. It's difficult to kill a man when he comes riding into town with an army. As noted above, that army's faith in Muhammad needn't require that Muhammad's religious claims be true.

Many people practised idolatry then don't you think they loved there idols. To say that Muhammad never received the message from gabriel is also hard to believe.

Maybe Muhammed thought he was hearing the angel Gabriel. Plenty of people in modern times claim to be executors of God's will (the pope and George Bush come to mind). Again, making this claim doesn't make it so.

How could he have known all that he did about science and other things if he couldn't read nor write. here is a proof from science of the truth of muhammad.
...
The quran recognized such an intricate phenomenon centuries before the scientists could discover it.

I didn't see anything in those surahs about currents, salinity, or temperature. That's a creative interpretation of scripture, but the text doesn't clearly spell out any scientific knowledge. Conversely, 27:61 refers to "mountains immovable." I guess Gabriel hadn't been briefed on plate tectonics or erosion before his prophesying appointment with Muhammed. Trying to find scientific facts in ancient scripture is a dangerous pursuit. Often passages are vague. Other times, they are contradicted by other verses in the same work.

If the Qur'an (or any other religious text) has so much to offer modern science, why don't we use it to inform our hypotheses and theories when we engage in new research?

[byofrcs]

The Jury argument is a complete red herring. It was fun whilst it lasted but science is not on trial. Juries are notoriously poor in ascertaining the truth. Eyewitness Testimony (highly regarded by Juries) is so poor in ascertaining the truth it is a joke.

Your approach of using the Jury as an example of identifying the truth is at best unreliable and is more in the area of showmanship, psychology and presentation skills. These are important skills but these are not relevant to the science of knowledge acquisition.

....
if you want to know what I am then I am a muslim I don't subscribe to any sect to separate myself from others. I am a muslim just as the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was he didn't claim anything which those claim today. (sunni or shi'ite) And I follow what the messenger practised and taught.

Your claim that Muhammad actually received the message from Gabriel is unreliable and without evidence. It is at best a myth invented to help Muhammad rule. Many others have claimed divine sources for their knowledge and it was a good trick to help rule as it is very hard to object to someone when they hold a sword and claim God told them 'this'.

What myths you believe in (Islam and Juries) are irrelevant to the question originally posted in that can science disprove somethings existence. The answer must be yes if a probability of existence is low. Bayes works well in this case. Science can show reasonably well show 'x' or not-'x'.

The evidence is there. So you mean to tell me that over a billion people in the world believe in a myth.

Yes. Sorry but it is true. You are following a myth. It has been done before and will be done many times in the future.

The numbers of adherents for Islam is unreliable and a significant number will be forced into belief. When it is possible for all of the Humanist, Rationalist/Freethinker, Unitarian, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist groups to advertise freely in Islamic states then you can quote a number. Until that time the number is meaningless.

Islamic states are notorious for autocratic rule and human rights abuse. One right is the ability to choose and change your faith. When that can happen then I'll believe the numbers you provide in your fallacy of the majority. Until that time it is as mythical as your god.

How can one man spread a religion by the sword by himself someone would've been kill him. Why couldn't they do it then? Many people practised idolatry then don't you think they loved there idols.

Lets dwell on those words..."spread religion by the sword..." for a moment.......
.....
.....
Ok, that's enough.

People practised idolatry and picked and choose Gods and Goddesses based on what was in fashion. Romans turned this into an art form.

...
To say that Muhammad never recieved the message from gabriel is also hard to believe. How could he have known all that he did about science and other things if he couldn't read nor write. ...

....Because he didn't write it !. Who actually wrote the Quran ?. It's an easy answer: it was the Sahaba, e.g. Zayd ibn Thabit and the many other scribes. There are no original copies of the Quran. It is copied. Without the original manuscripts - which were deliberately destroyed, what you claim is unreliable and always will be unreliable.

Don't worry - the bible is unreliable too !.

...
here is a proof from science of the truth of muhammad. 27:61 Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not. 55:19 He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: 55:20 Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress: 55:21 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

Rivers have confluences. A famous one is the Triveni Sangam in India. This most famous one would have been known about but closer to home is the huge Tigris-Euphrates alluvial salt marsh. This is the Cradle of Civilisation and that pre-dates the Quran by many thousands of years.

...
Scientist have now discovered that these two currents are different in their salinity, density, and temperature. They have also discovered that whenever the water moves from outside current to the inside current or vice versa, it immediately changes its state according to the water in the other current.
...

But the Quran doesn't mention that does it ?. You are making this up...like an Arabian night story, you are adding your own embellishments to create an even bigger myth. There is no science in those sura. That is story telling. Does it mention salt or salinity ?, does it give a location ? does it discuss thermoclines ? No it doesn't.

The Quran repeats other creation myths.

...
Thus, there is free mixing of the two bodies of water, yet both the bodies maintain their specific identities. Such currents are common in the oceans of Europe and North America. They are totally absent not only in the oceans around the arabian peninsula, but the indian and the mediterranean oceans. Mind you that there are no oceans close to the area in which Muhammad lived and there is also no evidence that Muhammad took any journey anywhere close to such waters to have known this. The quran recognized such an intricate phenomenon centuries before the scientists could discover it.

So you say but you just made that up !. It doesn't say "Ocean" - you say it says "River" !. Rivers have convolutions and the two most important rivers for humanity are the Euphrates and Tigris in....the Middle East smack bang in the middle where Muhammad was hanging out.

Answer this question: do you think that Sura 27:61 means Ocean or what it says i.e. River ? A quick check of the translations I find it says "River".

To me a river is a river and I can easily see convolutions. I'm a simple person. Show me why I should interpret that as Ocean and the not so obvious thermoclines ?.

[muhammad rasullah]

The evidence is there. So you mean to tell me that over a billion people in the world believe in a myth.

Do you mean to imply that the truth value of a belief corresponds to the number of people who believe in it? By this reasoning, Christianity is "more true" than Islam, which in turn is "more true" than Hinduism, which... you see the problem.

You call yourself a Muslim, so it seems unlikely that you believe in the existence of the Hindu pantheon or Siddhartha Gautama's (Buddha's) enlightenment. Yet these religions still have followers. For you, the number of these religions' adherents doesn't correspond to the truth of their beliefs. Why is your religion a special case?

How can one man spread a religion by the sword by himself someone would've been kill him. Why couldn't they do it then?

Muhammad didn't return to Mecca by himself. It's difficult to kill a man when he comes riding into town with an army. As noted above, that army's faith in Muhammad needn't require that Muhammad's religious claims be true.

Many people practised idolatry then don't you think they loved there idols. To say that Muhammad never received the message from gabriel is also hard to believe.

Maybe Muhammed thought he was hearing the angel Gabriel. Plenty of people in modern times claim to be executors of God's will (the pope and George Bush come to mind). Again, making this claim doesn't make it so.

How could he have known all that he did about science and other things if he couldn't read nor write. here is a proof from science of the truth of muhammad.
...
The quran recognized such an intricate phenomenon centuries before the scientists could discover it.

I didn't see anything in those surahs about currents, salinity, or temperature. That's a creative interpretation of scripture, but the text doesn't clearly spell out any scientific knowledge. Conversely, 27:61 refers to "mountains immovable." I guess Gabriel hadn't been briefed on plate tectonics or erosion before his prophesying appointment with Muhammed. Trying to find scientific facts in ancient scripture is a dangerous pursuit. Often passages are vague. Other times, they are contradicted by other verses in the same work.

If the Qur'an (or any other religious text) has so much to offer modern science, why don't we use it to inform our hypotheses and theories when we engage in new research?

Do you mean to imply that the truth value of a belief corresponds to the number of people who believe in it? By this reasoning, Christianity is "more true" than Islam, which in turn is "more true" than Hinduism, which... you see the problem.

This is not what I was implying when I posed the question it was merely a yes or no answer to see if he believed this or not. It was really rhitorical.

Muhammad didn't return to Mecca by himself. It's difficult to kill a man when he comes riding into town with an army. As noted above, that army's faith in Muhammad needn't require that Muhammad's religious claims be true.

Muhammad stayed in Mecca for almost a year before he left to medinah. Why couldn't they kill him during that time frame they were trying to. And when he came and they met to fight in the battle of badr they were significantly out numbered by the thousands. And even during the battle you would think that someone would've gotten to him to kill this man who as they believed had caused such havoc amongst the people. Why couldn't they do it? Muhammad fought in every battle that there was before he died but knowone killed him.

Maybe Muhammed thought he was hearing the angel Gabriel. Plenty of people in modern times claim to be executors of God's will (the pope and George Bush come to mind). Again, making this claim doesn't make it so.

When muhammad recieved the revelation it wasn't merely him hearing something and thinking it was god. no. Muhammad was illiterate he couldn't read nor write. Where would he get such words from to tell the people being as though he had no fundemental skills of reading or writing. He was not none to be a liar nor a person of poor character and conduct. He was regarded as the truthful amongst the people.

I didn't see anything in those surahs about currents, salinity, or temperature. That's a creative interpretation of scripture, but the text doesn't clearly spell out any scientific knowledge. Conversely, 27:61 refers to "mountains immovable." I guess Gabriel hadn't been briefed on plate tectonics or erosion before his prophesying appointment with Muhammed. Trying to find scientific facts in ancient scripture is a dangerous pursuit. Often passages are vague. Other times, they are contradicted by other verses in the same work.

If you are expecting to see the quran explain the salinity of water or temperature then you wont find it that's what science is for. Science goes into detail about these things the quran gives you the core of what it means or summarizes what the bible and science may further explain. And made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? this is the statement which focus is given to in my last post. To understand the miracle of this knowledge you must understand the period of which muhammad lived. Again he never traveled to any oceans to see mass amounts of water. There was no technology and science at this time to suggest that this could've been known by people at that time. So I ask you where do you think the knowledge came from? If i told you this statement and 1400 years later you discover this to be true you would logically ask how I knew this? so I ask you the same question.

If the Qur'an (or any other religious text) has so much to offer modern science, why don't we use it to inform our hypotheses and theories when we engage in new research?

There are some scientist who have used the quran as a source and after finding what the quran has said to be true turned and accepted Islam. Also the quran addresses many things which science refuses to entertain or address.

[Qbert]

There are some scientist who have used the quran as a source and after finding what the quran has said to be true turned and accepted Islam. Also the quran addresses many things which science refuses to entertain or address.

The same can be said, even moreso, about the christian bible or the jewish torah. Does that make them correct over your book? How many scientist have "converted"? Were they of muslim upbringing to begin with? You seem to make claims without backing yourself up.

[McCulloch]

There are some scientist[s] who have used the quran as a source and after finding what the quran has said to be true turned and accepted Islam.

Really? Name a few.

[byofrcs]

If you are expecting to see the quran explain the salinity of water or temperature then you wont find it that's what science is for. Science goes into detail about these things the quran gives you the core of what it means or summarizes what the bible and science may further explain. And made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? this is the statement which focus is given to in my last post. To understand the miracle of this knowledge you must understand the period of which muhammad lived. Again he never traveled to any oceans to see mass amounts of water. There was no technology and science at this time to suggest that this could've been known by people at that time. So I ask you where do you think the knowledge came from? If i told you this statement and 1400 years later you discover this to be true you would logically ask how I knew this? so I ask you the same question.

No, you answer my question.

Does the relevant Sura say RIVER or OCEAN ?

If it says RIVER then stop talking crap about OCEANS.

[muhammad rasullah]

There are some scientist who have used the quran as a source and after finding what the quran has said to be true turned and accepted Islam. Also the quran addresses many things which science refuses to entertain or address.

The same can be said, even moreso, about the christian bible or the jewish torah. Does that make them correct over your book? How many scientist have "converted"? Were they of muslim upbringing to begin with? You seem to make claims without backing yourself up.

This is your evidence!
http://www.youtubeislam.com/view_video. ... 4cff571fbb

[The Duke of Vandals]

This is your evidence!
http://www.youtubeislam.com/view_video. ... 4cff571fbb

This is the problem with religions that are in the habit of MURDERING people who disagree with them. You end up with believers with an inablitity to debate. I'm not sure how they do thinks in West Durkastan, Ackbar, but here we make arguments in our own words and then offer links to support our arguments. We also shy away from horrifically biased sources.